I really liked the LensAlign system. I still do but then I came across the Reikan FoCal system. I bought the Pro version and wow it is neat. I believe it provides a much more reliable MA adjustment. So I wrote a new blog about it, comparing it to the LensAlign system, discussing pros/cons, and providing some tips fro getting a good calibration on the FoCal system. It can be found here:

Regardless of the review....I would suggest you give Focal a look, Ellis.

It is quite an advance for camera/lens combo "tuning" (AFMA). Not only will it take judgement (usually poor) out of the adjustment process, it will also give you a good idea of the consistency of he combo...plus other analysis.

Beyond making sure your camera is focusing where you think it should be focusing, can any of those analysis tools actually make you a better photographer or make your photographers better in any meaningful way? People spend far too much time measurbating already and then arguing about their findings as it is.

Beyond making sure your camera is focusing where you think it should be focusing, can any of those analysis tools actually make you a better photographer or make your photographers better in any meaningful way?

Hi Ellis,

I don't recall anyone claiming to having become a better photographer due to these tools. They probably got more successful though, with fewer out-of-focus shots ...

Another benefit might be that one gets to be the master over one's equipment (by improved understanding of its operation and its limitations), instead of the other way around. To put it another way, I can assure you that such tools have never hurt the quality of my photography, on the contrary.

Quote

People spend far too much time measurbating already and then arguing about their findings as it is.

Too much? Only if it negatively impacts the output. Arguing? Isn't that what this discussion forum is about, exchanging arguments and info?

I think a photographer's time is generally better spent making themselves aware of the interaction of color and light, framing and composition, working on seeing life , and their shooting technique as opposed to dwelling on the aspects this program seems to measure. Between two photographs of equal power the more technically refined photograph may be technically better but a technical quality is only worthwhile if it backs up a photograph that is emotionally expressive, expresses a strong idea, and a strong aesthetic sensibility behind it. This is true for all of the arts, not just photography.

I've seen musicians, painters, and writers - as well as photographers - all get tangled up in the seductive mechanics of craft and lose sight of the bigger thing they are trying to get done. I am not immune to this myself. But I'd rather make something a little ragged and right than perfect and dull. Of course if you can get your art technically perfect and with expressing great feeling, embodying a powerful idea, and beautiful that is an unstoppable combination: Coppola's "The Godfather Part II" for example.

As the famous Ansel Adams quote goes: "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

That's for the viewer.

For me, the photographer, I'd actually say "There is nothing worse than a fuzzy image of a sharp concept". The angst if I did not nail the picture due to poor technique or equipment when it was before my eyes is huge. You don't always get a second chance...

You never get a second chance. never, ever. But see Robert Capa's photographs of the D-Day landings as well as more than a little of Henri Cartier-Bresson's work as an antidote to thinking that '"There is nothing worse than a fuzzy image of a sharp concept"

Technique is the cart, it isn't the horse.

Put the viewer first.

And if you think you're making pictures too flawed for you to live with, toss them.

Thank you, Bob! I like your review! I will get this program as soon as it's ready for mac.What's there to loose? With all lenses adjusted this can only be positive. I see no reason not to take a few hours to get it all optimised?

I think there is a middle ground here. I haven't looked at the product or review in the original post. But, I don't think there's any reason not to strive to have your equipment dialed in the best you can as long as it doesn't become the goal rather than the means to the goal. I used to know a guy who had a wonderful woodworking shop. It was equipped with the very best machinery and hand tools you could hope to acquire. The problem was that he never built anything, he simply put together the best shop you could have. It took me a while to figure out that his hobby was the shop instead of woodworking. Don't go down that road.

It was meant as a joke, but a bit serious too (I did not get a MF tech camera to waste all resolution on poor technique or decentered lenses). I just think the "go make pictures" comment is so cliché and unnecessary. Just let people do what they want, I don't care if someone's hobby is shooting brick walls. If it makes him/her happy, fine.

It was meant as a joke, but a bit serious too (I did not get a MF tech camera to waste all resolution on poor technique or decentered lenses). I just think the "go make pictures" comment is so cliché and unnecessary. Just let people do what they want, I don't care if someone's hobby is shooting brick walls. If it makes him/her happy, fine.

I would agree. The problem about making pictures is there is also a craft which should be mastered, and getting images sharp is an important part of that (when one wants them sharp).

We do lens alignments here at the shop, and 75% of the bodies that are brought in have a problem. It normally isn't a lens thing, it's a sensor plane thing. We can put the same lens on 3 different bodies and will get 3 completely unrelated results ... one body front focus, one back focuses, one pretty good.

The fact is manufacturing tolerances aren't that tight, and as camera sensors have improved, those flaws become apparent. You do your art a disservice if you fail to insure your equipment isn't performing at it's optimum.

Regarding FoCAL, we had an customer buy it and brought in results. I was impressed, and certainly appears easier and less prone to user error than other systems.

To be perfectly clear: I am not advocating not adjusting your camera's focusing mechanisms to perform optimally.

So what you were just ranting ? I didn't think you were a ranter Ellis......altough I agree with what you said. I like this system....I don't like teching out .... with this system I can just let it do it's thing and then go about my businessess making pictures.

My objections Does this system have a method of ensuring your camera is square to the target?

If it does, great. If not it is a no go.

The initial review I responded to says no hardware is needed beyond maybe a tripod. But you need a printer or access to one to print the target.

Another member of this thread said to look at the other things this software can do. Okay great: what exactly will do with that data?

The thread starter failed to mention that you are required to register your cameras including serial numbers with the software maker. Why? I see no compelling technical reason they need that information. What are they going to do with it? Who will have access to it? Why is he collecting that information? It might help his business model but there is no value in that for me.

I absolutely believe that tuning a camera's AF performance to specific lenses is critical. I do not believe this is the right product for doing that.

I'd like to see a more critical evaluation of the product before spending money on it. No tool is perfect.

The thread starter failed to mention that you are required to register your cameras including serial numbers with the software maker. Why? I see no compelling technical reason they need that information. What are they going to do with it? Who will have access to it? Why is he collecting that information? It might help his business model but there is no value in that for me.

Haven't you ever heard of license restrictions? Many PC programs automatically read the ID of the PC to restrict reregistering on more than one PC. Reikan allows 5 cameras. I am sure, if needed, you could drop old cameras and add new, as required.

Quote

I absolutely believe that tuning a camera's AF performance to specific lenses is critical. I do not believe this is the right product for doing that.

Frankly, I am shocked that a person, such as yourself, would take such a negative stance on a product without doing and due dilligence in learning evean a bit about it. If I didn't (hope I) knew better, I would suspect a vested interest.

Quote

I'd like to see a more critical evaluation of the product before spending money on it. No tool is perfect.

...of course....maybe not "critical" enough, particularly if one starts out with a negative atititude on dioing anything like this in the first place. For the rest of us, I don't think ~$60. (after discounts) is much to get the best out of 1000s or $$$s of gear.

I have no vested interests regarding this or another company's products.

I know what to do with this kind of analytic data.

The licensing restriction to 5 cameras is , from a user's PoV, dumb. As is the need for them to have my cameras seria lnumbers. there is no way to justify it. YoIf they want to register what computers I use it on that is one thing, but for the individual camera serial numbers? C'mon. And if they want to go down that path why not lens serial numbers too?

Regarding price: FoCal Pro is listed as £69.95 - which currently is US $107.86

As to being "negative" - I think "skeptical" is a better description of my state of mind when I am considering a purchase, especially when there is a big promise involved. I take the same stance for every product I look in the gadget world and each week I feel like I have to get more skeptical.

I have now read Wayne Fox's assessment. I trust Mr. Fox so I will be happy to give FoCal an honest evaluation - but I want them to drop the onerous camera registration scheme first. They really do not need to impose that burden on their customers. I am happy to let them limit me to which computers I use it on - that kind of registration and licensing makes sense.